Going to have to dig deeper just about everywhere, it seems.
Whenarewethere said
08:51 AM Apr 11, 2022
Not only that, on a forum, comparing my car to insurance prices in England. Prices in Australia are extortion.
dogbox said
09:08 AM Apr 11, 2022
i have just replaced the tug and my premium has just gone down a couple of hundred dollars, for double the insured value . had to check to make sure it was all good
Dicko1 said
03:12 PM Apr 11, 2022
Brodie Allen wrote:
Further to another post re home insurance -
Have received two (so far) renewals for vehicles:
Up 10 and 12% - and reduced valuations.
Going to have to dig deeper just about everywhere, it seems.
With the way second hand car prices are at the moment you just have to get agreed value.
oldbloke said
06:23 AM Apr 12, 2022
Mine has gone up abt 12% but agreed value went up about 10%.
86GTS said
07:39 PM Apr 12, 2022
Insurance companies of all persuasions are currently having to pay out millions at the moment
The only way that they can stay afloat is to raise renewal premiums of policy holders to compensate.
Buzz Lightbulb said
11:29 AM Apr 13, 2022
It's only going to get worse until climate change and it's consequences are addressed. Meanwhile, the moral thing for the government to do, due to its lack of decent policies, is subsidise the insurance premiums too keep them affordable.
Are We Lost said
12:25 PM Apr 13, 2022
Who pays for those subsidies? Your suggestion means we would all pay one way or the other. At least my Ferrari and Maserati collections will be cheaper to insure because others will be subsidising the premiums.
Knightrider said
06:05 PM Apr 13, 2022
Now come on Buz, the Lightbulb is not really on, is it! I love these comments whereby the "Government" needs to do more, pay for our life's requirements, subsidise our finances etc. Really Buz, if you think that Insurance Premiums are too high, don't pay for them & be self insured. Easy fix for you.
Craig1 said
08:51 PM Apr 13, 2022
No, I do not want any one to be " self insured ", stay off the road if you cannot afford to pay your whack.
Buzz Lightbulb said
02:10 PM Apr 14, 2022
@knightrider,
Please discuss the matter, don't attack the messenger.
It seems that some of you don't like the government paying for things. Maybe you think that there should be no relief for the flood and bushfire victims?
If you think that the government shouldn't be paying for the inequalities that a lack of action has caused then maybe you shouldn't drive on the roads, go to hospitals or send your children or grandchildren to be educated. Then you will need to build your own roads, hospitals and schools if you want to use them. That's a very Ayn Rand point of view that only the very rich will be able to afford. Thus making inequality even worse.
The Governments have been warned about climate change since the 70's bit have done nothing about it. The increase in severed weather is contributing to these natural disasters but you still think that the government shouldn't be responsible for its inaction.
Who's not thinking?
Are We Lost said
02:50 PM Apr 14, 2022
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:Who's not thinking?
As you will see from my comment which is much the same as Knightrider's, I believe it is you not thinking.
Somebody has to pay for the subsidies. Most of us (the population) have insurance, so under your plan, most of us would receive the subsidy. That means something else has to be cut to pay for it. Give with one hand, take with the other. You compared your proposed subsidies to floods and bushfires. They are disasters. Very different, and only a very small percentage of the population gets affected.
You raised the subject of climate change. What fraction of a degree in temperature reduction would there be if Australia had exceeded even the wildest pollution reduction target? If you actually think about that you would know it is totally insignificant. The whole world, yes. But Australia can achieve virtually zero effect. We are better off putting the money towards dealing with the impacts.
But rather than derail this thread further on the climate change subject I suggest raising it in a different thread if you wish to pursue that further.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Thursday 14th of April 2022 02:55:39 PM
KevinJ said
02:57 PM Apr 14, 2022
Insurance is designed to pay for "possible" events. Once that event becomes a "certainty", like floods in Lismore or the Hawkesbury or bushfires in the Blue Mountains, Insurance premiums are certain to go through the roof. If you can't afford the Council Rates, move suburbs, if you can't afford the Insurance premiums, move suburbs or buy a different vehicle.
DMaxer said
03:45 PM Apr 14, 2022
The pay out value of my car went up considerably and the premium has only increased about fifty dollars. I was pretty happy with that.
Dicko1 said
06:16 PM Apr 14, 2022
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
It's only going to get worse until climate change and it's consequences are addressed. Meanwhile, the moral thing for the government to do, due to its lack of decent policies, is subsidise the insurance premiums too keep them affordable.
I think you will find that for North Qld that is exactly what is going to happen. Fed govt are in discussions with insurance companies and a system is to be set up that makes insurance financially fair for all up here. This has been in the making for the last 2 years but reports are that it will take off some time in 2022. I bloody well hope so.
PeterInSa said
06:57 PM Apr 14, 2022
Re (If you think that the government shouldn't be paying for the inequalities that a lack of action has caused)
In SA we are still building houses on a Flood Plain, but councils need the rates, and the state needs the employment opportunities, but when the next 100 year deluge happens ( in a few years time or less) they will be asking the Fed Gov for a hand out.
-- Edited by PeterInSa on Friday 15th of April 2022 02:30:39 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
12:26 PM Apr 15, 2022
Were already have subsidies on health insurance or do some you not claim that levy on their tax returns? But a subsidiary for the poor, so that the next severe weather event doesn't take everything away from them, is much to ask. Once those people are put into poverty the Government will have to support them. Not addressing the problem not is just making the problem worse for later.
The premiums will get to a stage where only the top one to five percent of the population can afford them. I wonder what some of you will do then?
Australia's current contribution to climate change may not be as excessive as other countries but of of course, it has been contributing for much longer than developing countries. If every country says it won't do anything about climate change because of its minor contribution then nothing will happen. One country, possibly Portugal, ran for a few days entirely on green energy. They probably contribute as much less to climate change as Australia but at least their government is doing something, not like Australia.
The government should do a buy back scheme to relocate people out of areas of high risk. It worked in Gundagai. The alternative is to keep providing disaster relief for more people because severe weather events are only going to get more common.
The subsidies that the government gives to fossil fuel industries could easily help with subsidies for premiums for those who are disadvantaged. It would reduce the CO2 emissions and so the general public would be better off. Also, the disaster payments are not sustainable. More people will need disaster payments until they are relocated or the majority of people are on the disaster, payments list. The Government will be trying to find more money to pay to more people who are affected by more disasters.
Further to another post re home insurance -
Have received two (so far) renewals for vehicles:
Up 10 and 12% - and reduced valuations.
Going to have to dig deeper just about everywhere, it seems.
Not only that, on a forum, comparing my car to insurance prices in England. Prices in Australia are extortion.
With the way second hand car prices are at the moment you just have to get agreed value.
The only way that they can stay afloat is to raise renewal premiums of policy holders to compensate.
It's only going to get worse until climate change and it's consequences are addressed. Meanwhile, the moral thing for the government to do, due to its lack of decent policies, is subsidise the insurance premiums too keep them affordable.
Now come on Buz, the Lightbulb is not really on, is it! I love these comments whereby the "Government" needs to do more, pay for our life's requirements, subsidise our finances etc. Really Buz, if you think that Insurance Premiums are too high, don't pay for them & be self insured. Easy fix for you.
@knightrider,
Please discuss the matter, don't attack the messenger.
It seems that some of you don't like the government paying for things. Maybe you think that there should be no relief for the flood and bushfire victims?
If you think that the government shouldn't be paying for the inequalities that a lack of action has caused then maybe you shouldn't drive on the roads, go to hospitals or send your children or grandchildren to be educated. Then you will need to build your own roads, hospitals and schools if you want to use them. That's a very Ayn Rand point of view that only the very rich will be able to afford. Thus making inequality even worse.
The Governments have been warned about climate change since the 70's bit have done nothing about it. The increase in severed weather is contributing to these natural disasters but you still think that the government shouldn't be responsible for its inaction.
Who's not thinking?
As you will see from my comment which is much the same as Knightrider's, I believe it is you not thinking.
Somebody has to pay for the subsidies. Most of us (the population) have insurance, so under your plan, most of us would receive the subsidy. That means something else has to be cut to pay for it. Give with one hand, take with the other. You compared your proposed subsidies to floods and bushfires. They are disasters. Very different, and only a very small percentage of the population gets affected.
You raised the subject of climate change. What fraction of a degree in temperature reduction would there be if Australia had exceeded even the wildest pollution reduction target? If you actually think about that you would know it is totally insignificant. The whole world, yes. But Australia can achieve virtually zero effect. We are better off putting the money towards dealing with the impacts.
But rather than derail this thread further on the climate change subject I suggest raising it in a different thread if you wish to pursue that further.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Thursday 14th of April 2022 02:55:39 PM
Insurance is designed to pay for "possible" events. Once that event becomes a "certainty", like floods in Lismore or the Hawkesbury or bushfires in the Blue Mountains, Insurance premiums are certain to go through the roof. If you can't afford the Council Rates, move suburbs, if you can't afford the Insurance premiums, move suburbs or buy a different vehicle.
The pay out value of my car went up considerably and the premium has only increased about fifty dollars. I was pretty happy with that.
I think you will find that for North Qld that is exactly what is going to happen. Fed govt are in discussions with insurance companies and a system is to be set up that makes insurance financially fair for all up here. This has been in the making for the last 2 years but reports are that it will take off some time in 2022. I bloody well hope so.
Re (If you think that the government shouldn't be paying for the inequalities that a lack of action has caused)
In SA we are still building houses on a Flood Plain, but councils need the rates, and the state needs the employment opportunities, but when the next 100 year deluge happens ( in a few years time or less) they will be asking the Fed Gov for a hand out.
-- Edited by PeterInSa on Friday 15th of April 2022 02:30:39 PM
Were already have subsidies on health insurance or do some you not claim that levy on their tax returns? But a subsidiary for the poor, so that the next severe weather event doesn't take everything away from them, is much to ask. Once those people are put into poverty the Government will have to support them. Not addressing the problem not is just making the problem worse for later.
The premiums will get to a stage where only the top one to five percent of the population can afford them. I wonder what some of you will do then?
Australia's current contribution to climate change may not be as excessive as other countries but of of course, it has been contributing for much longer than developing countries. If every country says it won't do anything about climate change because of its minor contribution then nothing will happen. One country, possibly Portugal, ran for a few days entirely on green energy. They probably contribute as much less to climate change as Australia but at least their government is doing something, not like Australia.
The government should do a buy back scheme to relocate people out of areas of high risk. It worked in Gundagai. The alternative is to keep providing disaster relief for more people because severe weather events are only going to get more common.
The subsidies that the government gives to fossil fuel industries could easily help with subsidies for premiums for those who are disadvantaged. It would reduce the CO2 emissions and so the general public would be better off. Also, the disaster payments are not sustainable. More people will need disaster payments until they are relocated or the majority of people are on the disaster, payments list. The Government will be trying to find more money to pay to more people who are affected by more disasters.